Campbell v. United States, 73
| Citation | 69 L.Ed. 328,266 U.S. 368,45 S.Ct. 115 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. John V. Campbell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, pro se.
The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.
This action was brought by John V. Campbell to recover compensation for 1.81 acres of land taken by the United States to be part of a site for a plant for the production of nitrates. The district court found that the value of the land was $750, and that, by the taking, the remainder of his property was damaged $2,250. It also found that, by reason of the uses to be made of lands acquired from others for the same project, plaintiff's lands not taken were damaged $5,000. The court allowed the first two items and disallowed the last. The judgment was for $3,000 and interest. Plaintiff took the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error, but it should have been brought to this court (section 24, par. 20, Judicial Code [Comp. St. § 991]; J. Homer Fritch, Inc., v. United States, 248 U. S. 458, 39 S. Ct. 158, 63 L. Ed. 359), and it was transferred under section 238a, Judicial Code (Act Sept. 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a]). 291 F. 1015. The question for decision is whether plaintiff was entitled to the damages to the remainder of his estate resulting from the use to be made of the lands acquired from others.
In 1918 the United States, to aid in the prosecution of the war, had determined to build a nitrate plant at Ancor in the Little Miami valley, near Cincinnati, Ohio. In order to get a site, it had taken possession of many parcels of land making up a large tract, adjoining plaintiff's estate of 69.73 acres. August 31, 1918, an officer of the army, acting under the direction of the Secretary of War, and without obtaining plaintiff's consent or instituting condemnation proceedings or making any compensation therefor, took possession of a part of plaintiff's land, which was separated from the remainder by a public road. It was a garden, lying at the foot of a hill on which plaintiff's residence was situated. The entire tract, including the land taken from plaintiff, comprised 1,300 acres. The United States constructed on the site buildings, roads, railroads, a sewerage system, and such other things as are usually incidental to a large industrial plant. After the armistice, the project was abandoned. Some of the lands constituting the site were returned to the former owners, and some were sold. And the United States has determined to sell the rest of the land which includes that taken from plaintiff and amounts in all to 320 acres. The court found that the damages to the remainder of plaintiff's estate from the use to be made of lands acquired from others resulted chiefly from the probability that the tract, improved as it has been by the United States will be sold and used for industrial purposes.
The taking was under the sovereign power of eminent domain. The President and Secretary of War were authorized to purchase or condemn the lands. Act June 3, 1916, c. 134, § 124, 39 Stat. 215 (Comp. St. § 3110b); Act July 2, 1917, c. 35, 40 Stat. 241, as amended April 11, 1918, c. 51, 40 Stat. 518 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6911a). And from the taking there arose an implied promise by the United States to compensate plaintiff for his loss. United States v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U. S. 645, 656, 5 S. Ct. 306, 28 L. Ed. 846; United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 464, 23 S. Ct. 349, 47 L. Ed. 539; United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 329, 37 S. Ct. 380, 61 L. Ed. 746; United States v. North American Co., 253 U. S. 330, 333, 40 S. Ct. 518, 64 L. Ed. 935. Thereupon he became entitled to have the just compensation safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; that is, the value of the land taken and the damages inflicted by the taking—such a sum as would put him in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have been if his property had not been taken. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299, 304, 43 S. Ct. 354, 67 L. Ed. 664. But he was not entitled to have more than that.
The land taken from plaintiff was not shown to be indispensable to the construction of the nitrate plant or to the proposed use of the other lands acquired by the United States. The damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Crary
...but this provision is not applicable to a condemnation proceeding instituted by the federal government. See Campbell v. U. S., 266 U. S. 368, 371, 45 S. Ct. 115, 69 L. Ed. 328. Additional authority for this statement will be cited further along in this (b) Damages to Other Property of the C......
-
Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
... ... 162, 55 L.Ed. 165, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1135; ... Campbell v. U. S., 266 U.S. 368, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 ... L.Ed. 328; Sharp v. U. S., ... well-considered decisions by the Supreme Court of the United ... States, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, ... 18 L. R. A. 166, note; Vanderlip v. City of ... Grand Rapids, 73 Mich. 522, 41 N.W. 677, 3 L. R. A. 247, ... 16 Am. St. Rep. 597, where ... ...
-
Tug Allie-B Inc. v. U.S., ALLIE-
... ... UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Claimant-Appellee, ... Page 937 ... ALLIED TOWING ... ...
-
Miller v. United States
...to the entire tract. United States v. Miller, supra, 317 U.S. at 375-76, 63 S.Ct. at 280-81; see also Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 371, 45 S.Ct. 115, 116, 69 L.Ed. 328 (1924); United States v. Grizzard, 219 U.S. 180, 31 S.Ct. 162, 55 L.Ed. 165 (1911). Assuming that sufficient un......